Legal Insights & Practice Trends

National Blog

In February, the Ontario government launched The Changing Workplace Review to look at things like the rise of non-standard employment practices; the rising prominence of the service sector; the impact of globalization and trade liberalization; and diversity in the workplace, among others.

The review, led by lawyer Michael Mitchell, formerly of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, and management labour lawyer John Murray, a former justice of the Ontario Superior Court, will consider how the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act could be amended to better protect workers.

Ontario is developing a low-wage economy, writes the report’s author, Mary Gellatly, of Parkdale Community Legal Services in Toronto. In 2014, 33 per cent of the province’s workers were working in low-paying jobs compared with 22 per cent in 2004.

Interestingly, the dissent was not especially radical in its use of cooperative federalism. Although the dissenters were convinced that the registry was a cooperative effort (at paras. 115-135), they did not strike down s. 29 as violating the principle of cooperative federalism. Rather, with the principle of cooperative federalism in mind, they closely analyzed whether s. 29 was truly an exercise of the federal power in respect of criminal law. In a passage that is likely to be cited in decisions and debates to come, they stated:

[T]he dismantling of a partnership like the one established with respect to gun control must be carried out in a manner that is compatible with the principle of federalism that underlies our Constitution. Thus, Parliament or a provincial legislature cannot adopt legislation to terminate such a partnership without taking into account the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision to do so for the other partner. The courts must, in considering whether legislation or a statutory provision having as its purpose to dismantle the partnership is constitutional, be aware of the impact of that legislation or provision on the other partner’s exercise of its powers, especially when the partner that terminates the relationship is intentionally bringing about that impact (at para. 153).

The Tribunal has heard appeal after appeal against renewable energy approvals (REAs) for wind farms, many raising substantially the same health concerns (commonly concerns about noise, vibration, annoyance, flicker etc.) based on substantially the same evidence. The Tribunal has decided, over and over, that this evidence does not meet the statutory test, i.e. does not show that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human health. Accordingly, no Ontario REA has been struck down on the grounds of human health concerns.

Meanwhile, we hear that health concerns about wind turbines are lower in areas where the turbines are operating than in areas where they are merely proposed.

So it makes sense that some wind farm neighbours are deciding to settle their ERT appeals, rather than to incur the full legal costs of a hearing they are likely to lose.

The initial advice we give to our clients should be the sort of advice that identifies and discourages unreasonable expectations and dampens the flames of conflict. We should approach agreements with an attitude of respect for voluntary compromise, and accept that clients are motivated to settle by a host of intangible values in addition to their legal interests. We should discourage unnecessary litigation to the extent possible, even if it comes at the cost of a heavier personal file load. We should emphasize the need for global fairness to the family over unfair but optimal results for the individual, and address this consideration openly and frankly with our clients. We can be strong advocates for our clients while diligently pursuing our duty to encourage settlement as our codes of conduct require.

Australian-based Slater & Gordon, a rare example of a publicly-traded law firm, is acquiring the professional services division of Quindell Plc, including its legal services arm, for £623m ($CAD 1.1 billion), as part of a move to become the UK’s biggest personal injury firm. Adele Ferguson calls it a risky move:

The big question that needs to be asked of investors is what has Slater & Gordon bought? Quindell is an aggregator gone wrong.

UBS wrote an in-depth report on Slater & Gordon on March 16 that referred to it as "a serial acquirer of larger and larger businesses". It looked at upside and downside scenarios for the business. On the downside it said there was a growing risk of operational issues as management focuses more and more attention on integrating its recent acquisition spree. "Should no organic growth be generated and Slater & Gordon's full-year 2016 price to earnings multiple de-rate to 10 times from 17 times, we estimate the share price could fall to $4," the note said. This is compared with its current share price of $7.55 a share.

Even with the limited oversight we have concerning CSIS’ secretive operations, it appears the agency takes an equally aggressive approach. Justice John Major, in the Air India Tragedy Commission Final Report, found CSIS took an “expansive view” of its mandate. More recently, CSIS’ own Inspector General (an office that the Government eliminated in 2012) reported that the agency regularly flouted its own rules and policies. And in one of the few court rulings concerning CSIS’ clandestine activities made public (at least in part), Justice Richard Mosely essentially found CSIS had misrepresented its activities to the Court in order to circumvent legal restrictions on its co-operation with other foreign spy services.

“My name is Hassan Yussuff and that is one of the reasons why I’m against this bill.”

That was the president of the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday as he began his presentation to the Public Safety Committee hearing into Bill C-51.

He appeared Wednesday evening along with the Canadian Bar Association and four other witnesses: the Mackenzie Institute, the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and a security expert with 20 years in the intelligence community.

Editor's Picks

Follow Us:

National magazine is the official periodical of the Canadian Bar Association and covers the latest trends and developments affecting the legal profession and the practice of law, as well as the latest news regarding the association and its activities. If you have suggestions, ideas or requests concerning this Web site or the magazine, please send us an e-mail at national@cba.org